In May 2001, I was looking for a relatively safe investment which would pay better than the average interest rates. Along came Chase de Vere, which strongly suggested the opportunities of GE Life's High Income and Growth Plan 4, which would give 10.25% returns on what appeared as a simple three-year two-month bond.

I looked at the small print and thought like many others that the gamble may be worth it. The literature promised that at no time in the past 10 years would a similar bond not have paid out in full. Sadly, we now know what happened to the indices over the past few years.

My complaint is the apparent lack of concern that some of the larger IFAs had for their customers. They pushed the products, and were quite prepared to hide behind the "execution only" clause.

The IFA should have clearly identified in their promotional letter and sales literature, that the growth option in the GE plan was not worth the risk. It invoked a much steeper precipice (2.66% for every 1% vs. 2.00% for every 1%), and if the precipice was invoked it didn't provide any interest returns.

It is clearly arguable that precipice bonds were hardly of merchantable quality, when they were presented without clear statements of the proportional risks.

It is surely time the clause, "execution only", is revoked by the Financial Services Authority, which should ensure all financial products are clearly risk rated.

Of course in my case it might be better still if certain products had to be marked as "Likely to damage your wealth".

Alan Ferrisvia email

Pick up your chequebook? Don't bank on it

I wish Mr Grut luck in his intention to pick up his chequebooks at the bank (J&M, August 14). I have tried to do this for many years and have now given up. My experience has been with Lloyds TSB, but I suspect that it would be the same with other banks. When I banked at the local sub-branch (staff of two or three), it worked very well. So, naturally, the sub-branch was closed down.

At the main branch, it worked now and then; but I did receive four cheque books in five days through the post on one occasion.

I recently moved house, but find I cannot move my account to a more convenient branch (why not?).

P KoenigKent

Over-60s may travel to N&P

I was interested to read the letter from Matthew Maxwell (J&M, August 14). I recently tried to obtain travel insurance for my father, aged 87. He is in good physical and mental health but my mother is 87 and has Alzheimer's, and her illness could prevent my father from travelling.

I obtained a quote from Norwich & Peterborough BS. I found the staff very helpful and efficient. I had to contact their medical screening department to provide information about my mother's illnesses but they were then happy to provide a quote for my father - £49.30 for 17 days' cover in Europe.

M Duffy Wimbledon

CIS cover has no age limit

Matthew Maxwell might try CIS (Co-operative Insurance, tel: 08457-464-646). They've just done an annual Europe policy for the two of us (70 and 68), for £124 - with no upper age limit - and they would have done us an annual worldwide policy similarly.

Keith Davidson HemelHampstead

Care should be free for all

For two weeks running Margaret Hughes has written graphically about the ongoing difficulties of funding long-term care. These are indeed acute, and show no sign of being resolved.

Except of course in Scotland, where the government has had the wisdom to implement the recommendation of the Sutherland Royal Commission that both nursing and personal care should in principle be free.

Regrettably the English government has consistantly scorned the recommendation, preferring to invest the resources involved into services. Nothing wrong with that, except there is no point in having decent services if people are effectively bankrupted by paying for them.

The sooner long-term care is free in England (and Wales and N Ireland), the fairer the care system will become.

Robin Wendt, Member, Royal Commission on Long-Term Care

This granny is no launderer!

Duncan Howorth (J&M, August 14) has problems managing his money because of the anti money-laundering regulations. So do I!

An adviser at my bank recently informed me that in order to manage the money in my account I would need to have either a driving licence or a passport. I have neither.

It is not even easy for me to present evidence of address by a utility bill as these are addressed to my husband. Fortunately I can get round this because I happen to be treasurer of a small chapel whose electricity bill is sent to my address.

I wouldn't have thought that I look like a money-launderer. Perhaps I look like a money-launderer's granny! How have others in my situation managed to deal with the problem?